On the defensive about the value of its pricey cholesterol medicine, Amgen (AMGN) released a new study that argues its treatment is cost effective at about $9,700 a year, which is closely in line with the existing price tag — after discounts and rebates are subtracted from the $14,000 list price.

This contrasts, however, with the $4,200 price point that a group of academics suggested in their own analysis, which was released earlier this week. In their view, the drug — an injectable medicine known as Repatha — should be marked down by roughly two-thirds off the list price to be seen as a good value. Their analysis was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is a premium subscription that delivers daily market-moving biopharma coverage and in-depth science reporting from a team with decades of industry experience.

What's included?

  • Authoritative biopharma coverage and analysis, interviews with industry pioneers, policy analysis, and first looks at cutting edge laboratories and early stage research
  • Subscriber-only networking events and panel discussions across the country
  • Monthly subscriber-only live chats with our reporters and experts in the field
  • Discounted tickets to industry events and early-bird access to industry reports

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • (Note: I do not have access to the full article; this point may have been addressed. Regardless, the opening to this piece is misleading.)

    The first paragraphs of this article indicate a wider discrepancy between price points for “good value” between the two analyses than the models actually found. The Amgen article uses a $150,000 benchmark for cost-effectiveness, while the Kazi article refers to a $100,000 QALY gained threshhold. At a willingness-to-pay of $150,000 to mirror the Amgen results, Kazi’s model returns a ~$6K price point in the indication of HF and ~$7K for atherosclerotic disease. Granted, these are lower than the $9,699 price point found in the Amgen model, but they are a good deal higher than the $4,500 price you cite when you compare the price for value as defined by disparate threshholds.

    • Hi Kate,

      Thanks for the note. While I did not delve into the differing QALY specifics, I did include this line further down the piece:

      “Both of the latest analyses used slightly different benchmarks for determining cost effectiveness.”

      I understand your point, however, that the differing benchmarks can lead to different price ranges and should have noted that more explicitly.

      While I’m here – what do you think of the differing assessments?

      Regards,
      ed at pharmalot

Sign up for our Daily Recap newsletter

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy